Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_02_13 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 13,2002,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S.Reader,Chairwoman May W.Aisen Robert A.Cohen Edward Z.Jacobson C.Alan Mason Absent: Edmund Papazian Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,.Director of Building Antonio V.Capicotto,Consulting Engineer Elizabeth Paul,Environmental Coordinator Nancy Seligson,Liaison Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. The Public Stenographer was not present for this meeting, as all the matters on the agenda are for consideration only. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader said the first matter on the agenda is the approval of the Minutes from the meeting of December 12,2001. She has received both the transcript and the Minutes. She asked if the Board members had received the transcript and draft Minutes of December 12,2001. The Board members said they just received the transcript for the December 12,2001 meeting. Ms.Reader asked if they had a chance to review the transcript. After some discussion,Mr.Reader said the review of the Minutes will be held over until next month. She asked the secretary to make sure everyone receives a copy of the Board Minutes for that meeting,other than me because I have it. Ms.Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Anthony Sgarlata-626 Fifth Avenue-Block 132,Lot 61 Anthony Sgarlata appeared to address the Board. Ms.Reader said this is a consideration and asked Mr.Sgarlata to give the Board a preview of what you're asking for. Mr.Sgarlata said this is just going to be an auto detailing,mainly wholesale. Ms.Reader said when you say mainly wholesale,do you mean for car dealers. 7 Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 2 Mr.Sgarlata said right. It's just a service facility. There's not too much to explain. I have mapped out on the plan what they asked for. I'm not doing any renovations to the property,the building or the parking lot for that matter. Ms.Aisen asked what's there now? Mr.Sgarlata said what's there now is a block garage. Mr.Cohen asked what's the present use of the building. It's vacant now,right? Mr.Sgarlata said right. Ms.Reader said it's the garage part behind the pet store,with which Mr.Sgarlata agreed. Ms.Reader asked if the work is going to be done inside the garage or outside. Mr.Sgarlata said the work is going to be done inside the garage only. Ms.Reader asked what hours are you asking for,that you want the business to be open. Mr.Sgarlata said the hours of 9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday. Mr.Capicotto asked if there's just going to be washing and waxing. Mr.Sgarlata said just detailing,no mechanical,no repair,no body and fender,no environmental anything. Any materials I use are environmentally safe. There will be no spraying,no kind of antifreeze or anything like that,no dumping. Ms.Reader asked what kind of vehicles are you going to be servicing,service trucks or what. Mr.Sgarlata said all types of vehicles,cars,trucks. Mr.Capicotto said when you say trucks,you mean personal trucks. Mr.Sgarlata said I mean SUV's,personal,not oil company trucks or anything like that,or commercial vehicles. Mr.Jacobson asked how many vehicles would you have on the premises at any one time? Mr.Sgarlata said six. Ms.Aisen asked if they all fit inside the garage at the same time. Mr.Sgarlata said yes. Mr.Jacobson asked are you sure? Mr.Sgarlata said yes. Mr.Jacobson said the garage doesn't seem to be that large. Mr.Sgarlata said if you put them tight,they fit;five,six. Ms.Reader asked do you have use of the outside lot for parking,if you're not working on a vehicle if you only want to work on four,but you have six cars? Do you have any space that's part of what you can use? Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 3 Mr.Sgarlata asked outside? It's not designated to me. Ms.Reader said cars have to come and go into the...left haneine. Mr.Sgarlata said to be worked on behind the garage door inside the property. Ms.Aisen said so it's by appointment only. Mr.Sgarlata said I'm not really sure how it's going to be,but I assume that's the way it's going to be. Ms.Reader said if Ms.Aisen wants to get the car detailed,she should talk to you individually and get work done. Mr.Sgarlata said she would have to come at a time that's convenient,by appointment. Ms.Aisen said so it's not strictly wholesale. Mr.Sgarlata said no,that's what I was doing already. I'd like to naturally get some retail customers. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Carpaneto,is there any requirement about parking there if he has a business. Is there any kind of code requirement? Mr.Carpaneto said although the spaces may not be designated to him specifically in some kind of a lease agreement,when I looked in the file the parking for the square footage of the whole building was available on the lot. Mr.Sgarlata said there is parking marked out. Mr.Capicotto said,the drain by the garage door,do you know where that runs to or that's connected to? Mr.Sgarlata said I'm not sure,'but it was there when I got there. The landlord said that it was inspected once before. I'm not sure,so don't hold me to this,but there's some sort of separator in the drain in case he was to rent it to a mechanical outfit. It doesn't'affect me,because I'm not using any hazardous waste, just soap and water. It is environmentally safe. Dr. Mason said that whole area drains into the Pine Brook drain and goes out by Tony's Nursery eventually. Ms.Reader said I thought,Mr.Carpaneto,I heard you say something that there was some information in the file. Mr.Carpaneto said there was some information in the building file when the owner added this piece to the building. Actually this is the original building,and then they built the chow down dog food,from what the file says. I believe there is some information in that file having to do with the separator for the service garage. I believe at one time it might have even been a repair garage. It was at one time. Dr.Mason said that went before CZMC years ago,very early on. Mr.Carpaneto said it's going back. Dr.Mason said that goes back probably fifteen/twenty years. Ms.Reader asked if there's anything else. Any other comments or questions? This gets referred to CZMC. i Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 4 Ms.Gallent said and to Westchester County Planning Board. Ms.Reader said the CZMC is the Coastal Zone Management Commission and they're an advisory board to us. Basically their focus is on environmental impact. We are referring it as we refer almost every project to them. Between now and next month's meeting,you must meet with them on February 26,2002 at 8:00 p.m.,in Conference Room A. Mr.Sgarlata asked,do I have to make an appointment? Dr.Mason said you just did. Elizabeth Paul,the Environmental Coordinator,will put it on the agenda. Ms.Reader said go and meet with them and answer any questions that they have. Ms.Paul is going to give you her card and it's probably advisable to speak to her and she will help you understand what you need to be prepared with. Mr.Sgarlata said is there anything else I need to know. Ms.Reader said yes,what's the date of the next planning board meeting. Ms.Roma said the date of the next planning board meeting is March 13,2002,at 8:15 p.m. I'm putting you on for a public hearing. Mr.Sgarlata asked,what's going to happen there? Ms.Reader said at a public hearing if anyone has any objections or anything to say about the project,other than you,they will speak. We listen and then we decide whether to approve or disapprove. Mr.Sgarlata asked,is there anything I should be prepared for,anything I should bring with me? Dr.Mason said you will probably get some insight into that when you go to Coastal Zone,because they will address the drainage in some detail,and the use of the building and the possibility of contaminating the water going into the Premium. Mr.Sgarlata asked,who are these people? Ms.Reader said Dr.Mason is one of them. Having heard Dr.Mason,just to give you a little bit of help, get whatever information you can on that draining and the separator. Find out where it leads in to. You may want to get an engineer to say that it's operable. Mr.Cohen said you may want to examine the building file,because obviously there's something in there. Mr.Sgarlata said I'll check it out. I know the inspectors were there six years ago,a month ago,so if something's there I'll check it out. Ms.Reader said I'll see you next month at 8:15 p.m.here. Mr.Sgarlata thanked the Board. Ms.Reader read the next matter as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Mr.&Mrs.Mark Lederman-87 Rockland Avenue-Block 210,Lot 328 } , Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 5 Benedict Salanitro,the engineer for the project,appeared to address the Board working on behalf of my client,Mr.Mark Lederman and his wife. We basically have a project that has three components to it. The first component will be the extension of the deck by about 75 total sq.ft.of additional open deck area. Ms.Reader asked,an additional 75 sq.ft. Mr.Salanitro said yes and demonstrated on the rendering before the Board,stating it is on the plan. The second component would be the proposed regrading of the rear yard area. In doing so we propose to extend or tighten the existing wall. Part of that construction will entail the removal of the existing stone wall and reopening it further inward,closer to the property line. That area of work is along the same line as the existing white fence that's on the property. You can tell by the photographs as well as the plans, that the fence right now is currently set back on average two to three feet. Mr. Salanitro said we are currently before the Zoning Board. We've been before the Zoning Board because of the total aggregate height of the wall and the fence. Ms.Reader said we're talking just for the wall I thought. Mr.Salanitro said it's 8 ft.4 in.maximum to 12. We currently have a wall that ranges in height,average height of 3 ft.and existing fence 4 ft.,so we have 7. So our average height of new construction is about 3 ft./3'h ft. Mr.Salanitro said those are the three major components of this proposed construction. What I did here ..interrupted. Mr.Cohen said the deck,the wall and the regrading. Mr.Salanitro said and the reinstallation of the same fence above the proposed new wall. Ms.Aisen asked,all of this is taking place at the back of the house,the side and the back? Mr.Salanitro said the side and the rear of the house. Ms.Aisen said the regrading is behind the house. Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. Ms.Aisen said the wall is behind the house. Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. Ms.Aisen said you're doing the wall,because you're regrading the yard? Mr.Salanitro said what we thought we would do,and it's something that we have some flexibility with, was to rebuild the wall by bringing it behind the wall within the 100-year flood line,which is elevation 71. The brown shaded area delineates the proposed area of new work with respect to the wall. The green area is the area of the proposed regrading,which we chose elevation on the plan#76,to carry that section level. We're not looking to regrade the entire rear yard because it slopes back or away from the property, upwards from the property. We're just looking to recapture this portion of rear,side yard. Mr.Salanitro said the location of the proposed stone wall is right where the existing fence line is now. Ms.Aisen said but it's going to be higher. Mr.Salanitro said the total will be higher. r , Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 6 Mr.Salanitro said this is the old wall in relationship to the proposed new wall. We thought while we were going to be in here doing the heavy construction work with the wall,that we rebuild it and bring the whole wall back. Ms.Reader said so you're taking down the current wall. Mr.Salanitro said we propose to do that,but we're having some thought and considerations of possibly not. Mr.Salanitro said this is the east branch of the Sheldrake River,a class"C"river. Ms.Reader said do I need state approval? SORRY,BOARD MEMBERS ARE SPEAKING;CANNOT HEAR WHAT'S BEING SAID! After some discussion,Mr.Salanitro said the rationale for the proposal was from a planning perspective, and you may or may not like this,was that if we were able to capture and increase the surface area for additional water to accumulate within the boundaries of the old wall and the proposed new wall roughly calculated out if we were to build a new wall back here it would be an additional 5900 gallons of additional water or 780 cu.ft. Mr. Salanitro said all this proposal does environmentally,if you will,is to increase the width of the channel. Ms.Reader said so that you theoretically will make an improvement. Mr.Salanitro said it's a betterment,but if that's something that is not desirable we would,there's a double jeopardy for us. Ms.Reader said the CZMC will focus on that. Ms.Salanitro said that's why we want to discuss it. Ms.Aisen said when you say move the wall back,you mean back to the house,closer to the house and make the yard smaller. Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. The reason for that is we currently have the fence at a given location, that the area in front of the fence is not used by the applicant. Ms.Salanitro said it's the river side of the fence. The property goes to the center of the Sheldrake River. The Lederman's theoretically own half of the Sheldrake River for the east branch. Ms.Reader said their property line is in the middle of the river? Mr.Salanitro said correct. Ms.Reader said when you said you were going to walk over to the property line,you really didn't mean the property line. Mr.Salanitro said usable property. Ms.Reader said I thought the white fence was really where the property line was. Mr.Salanitro said the situation is almost double jeopardy,because we run into the zoning issue of the aggregate height. If we leave everything alone to be honest,we would simply have a tired wall behind the existing wall which would then not put us in as difficult situation. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 7 Ms.Reader said I know you said stone wall,but the current wall is these old round stones. What kind of stone are you using? Mr.Salanitro said we're looking to use some larger stone to basically act as a river wall. Most of the river walls within the Town,I took some photos down here which were a small presentation for the Zoning Board,the rationale for these photographs was to try to depict some height in reference to our application. Most of the walls within the Town on private property were similar in nature to what is here. So it will be stone. Depending on what the contractor,if he's able to bring in the large volumetric stones as we're proposing,because as you know the site is very difficult to access. There will be some temporary access to get back there. We may go back to a similar wall like this, but whatever wall is finally opted, depending on the construction cost,will be approved by the Town. Mr.Salanitro said that's the three parts of the project.We have the deck,which is the aerial extension if you will,it's not a ground extension,because the deck currently is elevated,a little bump out here,it's within zoning too,the Zoning Board is not hearing that application. There's no impervious surfaces there. It's an elevated extension,demonstrated on the renderings before the Board. We propose to build an addition to that deck,so we can get a set of stairs out to the side yard,one pair of stairs. After further discussion,Mr.Jacobson said I was looking at the section on the first drawing,the existing site plan drawing,and the section seems to indicate new wall construction extending down towards the bridge. Mr.Salanitro said no,the end of construction,the detail's on S-1,we ran out of room on S-2,but the new wall construction is going right there on S-2. Mr.Jacobson said I can see that,but what I don't understand is when you look at sections 4 and 5,on the first sheet,they show proposed changes in the wall. Mr.Salanitro said it's actually supposed to be cut right here. There should be no 5,it should be a 4;well noted. Mr.Salanitro said the elevation of the wall will be continuous at the top at elevation 76. I mention that elevation because that's the point in the rear yard that we want to try to level off. Mr.Jacobson said just to clarify things,4 and 5 just don't relate. Mr.Salanitro said the wall will be moved over closer to 3. We took cross sections throughout the entire length of the existing wall. In actuality Mr.Jacobson is correct. The cross section is stopped where the proposed new wall is supposed to end. I gave you two more sections than you need. Ms.Reader asked,then we don't need 4 and 5? Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. Mr.Jacobson said I think you've created a misconception that this new wall construction is coming down. Mr.Salanitro said in actuality 1,2 and 3,but utilizing those threes sections you get the overall view of what we're going to do. Ms.Reader asked do these plans need to be revised or just note that that's what we're going to do. Mr.Salanitro said that's just additional information. I will correct that. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 8 Mr.Jacobson said I just want the Board to be aware that Mr. Salanitro and I are acquainted and Mr. Salanitro was a consultant to me on a number of projects some time ago. I don't believe that will affect my judgment on the project. Ms.Reader asked,what about the variance? Mr.Salanitro said they couldn't vote on that without SEQRA being determined that evening. Ms.Gallent said it's unlisted,it's not a Type 2. Mr. Salanitro said they were confused because of the definition of structure, whether the wall is a structure. Ms.Gallent said there's a SEQRA category that says the replacement of minor accessory or appurtenant residential structure. Whether a river wall constitutes a structure...left hanging. After some discussion,Ms.Gallent said I actually wasn't at that meeting. Did they say it was an unlisted action. Mr.Salanitro said I don't think they could make a determination of findings. Mr.Carpaneto said they didn't make a determination. They felt that they wanted the Planning Board to report back with the impact. They didn't seem to have a problem with the height of the wall. Mr.Salanitro said,that was my impression. After some discussion,Ms.Gallent said that would mean it is a Type II action. SORRY,EVERYBODY IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! Ms.Reader said let me run through this over counsel's shoulder: We had a short conference between the two of us. Let me just read what is a Type II action, that might be applicable. That is sub#10; construction,expansion or placement of minor accessory or appurtenant residential structures including garages,carports,patios,decks,swimming pools,tennis courts,satellite dishes,locally censored barns, storage sheds,or other buildings not changing land use or density. Ms.Reader said I'm sort of getting feedback. My thought is if fences would make it a Type II action,I would think this type of wall would make it a Type II action. Dr.Mason said it works for me,Marilyn. Mr.Cohen said I agree. Mr.Jacobson said only one thing I wanted to add and I don't know if it's within the purview of the Board, but I have some reservations about the extension on the deck. I think it's an ingenious structural solution by the way. If you look across at that property,everything being so high up,it looks in a sense like a floating saucer above the landscape and since I note that the grade of the rear yard of the house is going to brought up to a point where it's very close to the first floor level and the existing deck would appear as though they might connect,is that the case? Mr.Salanitro said the decks will be the same level. Mr.Jacobson asked,what's the relationship between the new grade and the elevation of the deck. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 9 Mr.Salanitro said the new grade right along the back of the house,as you can see from the existing topo, is just about....interrupted. Mr.Jacobson said 84 is the living room level, so you are above grade there. It's just I,just as an architect,have reservations about how that appears in the neighborhood there looking at it from the house across the street. Again,it's an ingenious structural solution,but I just question the character of the ...interrupted. Ms.Reader said I just want to focus a little bit here. Mr.Salanitro said there's going to be lattice underneath. Ms. Reader said we have a number of different types of matters that come before the Board. This particular one is a Freshwater Wetlands, so while architectural and aesthetic issues are not relevant ...interrupted. Mr.Salanitro said however,duly noted,because we had that situation now. SORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! Ms.Reader said that might be a private conversation you may have. Ms.Reader said with respect to the deck,unless where it would be relevant,is how it affects pervious versus impervious on the flow and therefore impact on possible wetlands. Mr.Salanitro said as we progress forward,we do have two letters from the adjoining neighbors in support of the application,written letters. We've given it already to the Zoning Board and we will make that presentation here at the next public hearing. Ms.Reader said because of the modification on these plans,Mr.Salanitro,I think it's probably a good idea to have redrawn plans for the next meeting. Mr.Salanitro said it will actually just be the elimination of those two details on the bottom. Ms.Reader said if you want to add coloring for the walls,that's very helpful for us visualizing. Mr.Salanitro said absolutely. Mr.Capicotto said on the cross section,I know you're removing an area,filling in an area or taking away an area and then replacing it with a new volume. What we normally do in situations like that rather than do a study on it is calculate how much volume is being taken away at what elevation versus how much is being put back at that same elevation. For example,if you're taking out 1000 gallons of storage at a lower elevation and replacing it at a higher elevation,that new storage is not as helpful as the lower storage and an equal volume at lower elevation because now you have to achieve flooding in order to utilize that extra volume. Mr.Salanitro said I don't think we have any,I think it's total net gain of volume. There's no volumetric swap. The entire front of the new wall projects behind the existing wall,so that the area that we remove is all new,all cut. There's no fill. Ms.Reader said it opens the channel? Mr.Capicotto said in that case it opens the channel without adjoining flood zoning. The other thing is along that bank,in looking at the cross sections that is provided,it doesn't show much distance between the existing wall and the proposed wall. If you look at the plans,like in here...interrupted Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 10 Ms.Reader said pictures are being shown. Mr.Salanitro said these are pictures of the rear corner of this area,because I realize I didn't have this picture...interrupted Mr.Capicotto said the bend in the river. Ms.Roma asked if those pictures are going to be an exhibit. Mr.Salanitro said not at this point,just for clarification of what we're talking about. He said this is across the way,the neighbors as you're on Rockland to the left. You can see some washout along that area. We also propose to,as a side note,remove that. Ms.Aisen said you're looking from the Lederman's. Mr.Salanitro said this is across the way. This is across the Sheldrake River and the neighbor immediately to the left. After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked are you cleaning up the neighbor's area too? Mr.Salanitro said we want to do it to show some improvement to the river at this point along the property area. Ms.Reader said when you go to CZMC you should bring these. Mr.Salanitro said that's why I took these photographs. Mr.Capicotto said the sections,for example Section A and Section B,and the way I interpreted them it looks as though it's a fill,because the existing grade is lower and you're raising it. Mr.Salanitro said the existing stone wall there,the notation which was brought up at the Zoning Board, all the sections as proposed existing stone wall,is removed. That's where there might be some confusion. Mr.Capicotto said and you're just taking that bottom wall elevation and bringing it all the way up to where the new wall is. Mr.Salanitro said that is correct. It's exactly right. That's why the confusion. If anyone can follow what Mr.Capicotto is saying,is in the sections,let's say 2 and 3,it says existing stone wall. One of the things it should say is"to be removed",because then you would be looking at the new wall at this elevation here. So there's a continuation of the bottom of the existing channel that goes along the face of the new wall. That's why there's no fill. Mr. Capicotto said since you're taking away the other two sections,it would be helpful to cut another section in the wider part of the cut so that it would be where the old wall is coming out and the new wall going in. Mr.Salanitro said I will do that. Mr.Capicotto said something else you might want to address is procedure during construction. You don't want to be in the middle doing this when you get a storm and have everything wash out. You may want to consider,I don't know if it would be feasible,leaving the old wall up while you excavate the whole new wall and then cut everything else. Mr.Salanitro said I spoke to two contractors and they've recommended the same thing. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 11 Ms.Reader asked,can we make that a condition or put it down on the plan? Dr.Mason said we have no control on the east branch either. Whatever happens,happens. There's no way to minimize it. Mr. Salanitro said we have to be mindful of the time of year we're in. We won't be doing it when obviously we have high water situations. It's important that the contractor at the end of the week,at the end of the day,cleans up and monitors his work area. After some discussion among the Board members,Ms.Reader asked if there is anything else. Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Salanitro wanted to present any other things that we would like to consider for the next time. Mr.Salanitro said not at this time. Dr.Mason said we did settle on the Type II. Ms.Reader said I haven't made a declaration yet,because I'm thinking along a different thought. Ms.Gallent said does the Zoning Board want to wait to see the outcome of this? Mr.Salanitro asked when is the Zoning Board in March. Is it before this meeting or after? Mr.Carpaneto said the Zoning Board in March is the fourth Wednesday of the month. Mr.Salanitro said then we're hopeful that some determination is made. Ms.Gallent said you're not on for February. Mr. Salanitro said no we're not,we have to go to the CZMC. I think we are on,depending on the outcome of the March public hearing here,for them. Ms.Reader said anything else. This goes to the CZMC,I declare us the Lead Agency and on advise of counsel,I declare it to be a Type II action and no further action with SEQRA is nerPcsary. Ms.Reader said it automatically gets referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. Mr.Capicotto said I have one more question for Mr.Salanitro. The construction issues..inaudible. Mr.Salanitro asked,do all four sheets need to be presented to the CZMC? Ms.Reader said Elizabeth Paul,the Environmental Coordinator,is present. Why don't you discuss that with Ms.Paul. Ms.Reader said the matter is scheduled for a public hearing on March 13,2002 at 8:15 p.m.and February 26,2002 with the CZMC. Mr.Salanitro thanked the Board. Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL USE PERMIT-S.D.B Restaurant Larchmont,Inc.-1262 Boston Post Road-Block 407,Lot 192 Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 12 Alex Racanelli appeared before the Board to represent S.D.B.Restaurant larchmont,Inc. Ms.Reader asked if this is a renewal. Mr.Racanelli said yes. Ms.Reader asked what restaurant is there now. Mr.Racanelli said Pizza&Brew. Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Racanelli is familiar with what the conditions are in the current Special Use Permit. You have it in front of you,you've read it and you're asking for the same special conditions,etc. Mr.Racanelli said correct,everything is identical. Ms.Reader asked if there were any questions. There were none. Ms.Reader said the Board will schedule it for a public hearing next month. Ms.Gallent said it will be referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and the CZMC. Dr.Mason asked what would the issue be? Ms.Reader said I don't know. I'm told that everything has to go to the CZMC. Ms.Gallent said not everything. Ms.Gallent said permit renewal does not have to go. Ms.Reader said this matter will get referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. Ms.Reader asked who gives notice for the public hearing. Mr.Carpaneto said that the applicant gives notice. Ms.Roma said she will get the lots and blocks,with the notice,that need to be noticed and will give Mr. Racanelli a call for pickup. Ms.Reader said if proper notice is not given,the case will not be heard next month. Ms.Reader read the next matter as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL-Bonnie Briar Country Club-808 Weaver Street-Block 225,Lot 1 and Block 201,Lot 19 Ms. Reader said we have two memoranda that were received tonight one from Elizabeth Paul, the Environmental Coordinator,dated February 13,2002. Ms.Reader said I forgot to ask you just to state your name and spell it. The gentleman said I'm Steven Grogg,from TRC Raymond Keyes Associates. Ms.Reader said I just want to make sure,Mr.Grogg,that you've received or had an opportunity to review the memorandum that we've received from Elizabeth Paul,Environmental Coordinator for the Town of Mamaroneck,dated February 13,2002. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 13 Mr. Grogg said I did not receive that one. I've got the one from the Coastal Zone Management • Commission(CZMC). Ms.Reader said I think he should see what we've seen. There's one from the Director of Building. Ms. Reader asked if Mr.Carpaneto thinks it might be more advisable to discuss your memo. Mr.Carpaneto said I received a memo from David Goessl,regarding the proposed site work at Bonnie Briar Golf Course. A moment was taken at this time for review of this letter. The Board reviewed some pictures,and Ms.Reader asked if it's all on Fenimore. Mr.Carpaneto said yes,it's all on Fenimore. Ms.Reader asked,photo#1 is the actual bridge,photo#2 is the bridge from a different angle,and photo #3 was taken standing on the bridge. Mr.Grogg said right. Photo 4 was taken across the street looking at the entry. Ms.Reader said where the tree needs to come down. She asked if the curbing there would have to be removed. Mr.Grogg said correct. Ms.Reader informed Mr.Grogg that he was on. Mr.Grogg said good evening. My name is Steven Grogg and I'm with TRC Raymond Keyes Associates. We're the civil engineers working with Bonnie Briar Country Club on their application. Mr.Grogg said when we were before you in December,2001,we presented the initial application and at that time you had several requests. One,you referred us to the Coastal Zone Management Commission. We appeared before them at the January 22,2002 meeting. They had several recommendations which we have incorporated into the revised plans that were submitted back to this Board. Also,in our resubmission to the Planning Board we included a full EAF statement,an environmental impact statement,in which we attached a part 3 narrative where we gave a further description of essential and mitigation for the area for grading,vegetation,drainage,floodplain,traffic,maintenance and construction noise. Mr. Grogg said I'm here really to answer questions tonight. I've got the revised plans if there's any specific questions. One of the things that was asked by the Board,which we did provide,was a cross section through the driving range. In speaking with the Planning Board engineer,I actually brought in and revised slightly the one that you had planned. Mr.Grogg pointed out the two cross sections through the proposed driving range,what's referred to as Section BD and CC,the locations of which are shown on the second drawing in your plan set. Generally these two cross sections,one is in the northern side.Here is the driving range, then there's two houses at the end of Coventry Court. The impact there,the two sections we drew one is approximately at the northern house and one is approximately at the southern house. The brown that you see is the existing grade and the green is where we are proposing to fill for the driving range. the dash line that is above it,is the grading that was shown on the original plan and as you can see we've actually revised the slope. It's not as steep as it was previously and we brought the height down. Ms.Aisen asked how much. Mr.Grogg said it's about 175 now,it was about 179 to 180 before,about 5 ft.vertically,but also it was about 1'h horizontal to 1 vertical before. Now it's a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. • Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 14 Ms.Reader said it is steeper than it is currently. Mr.Grogg said yes. The brown is what's there now,the green is..interrupted. Ms.Aisen asked,how much higher is it? Mr.Grogg said it varies. It varies from about 25 ft.at the very southeast corner to what then goes back to zero in the northern, because the grade is going up. When I was asked when I spoke with Mr. Capicotto is if we could try to indicate on the cross section the existing houses. What I've shown here, as you can see in red, we were able to obtain one from the neighbors and also from the Building Department,the as-built plans of the location of the house is accurate from the as-built. Elevation wise, I've got the original subdivision plans for the Coventry Court and the northern house looks to be pretty close. The original subdivision plans for the southern house he showed it well off,but I know from being out there the pool area is filled. We have a good indication of the elevation of the pool area. I know from all of us being there that the house is probably 6 ft.to 8 ft.higher than the pool. This is,I think,a fair representation elevation of the house. Ms.Aisen said the house is directly in a sight line with the new grade. The new grade blocks the houses ..inaudible. Is that correct? Mr.Grogg said the inaudible property line is this heavy dashed line that you see. This is the first fairway that comes down,these are actually second sheaths. the existing driving range is located from the tennis court area down toward the property line drive,it has a jog in it. I shaded in green the area that's going to be filled. These are the two houses. Ms.Aisen said but the cross section is very revealing. Ms.Reader said I may have missed something. How far is that house and the slope? It's hard to say, because right now there's a hollow slope,it's concave. You're making something that's currently concave, convex. Ms.Aisen said you're not only flattening it,you're raising it. Mr.Jacobson said I think you have to say that the impact is going to be dramatic on the house. Mr.Cohen asked,how many feet is it from the end of berm of the hill to the house? Mr.Grogg said about 100 ft. After some discussion,Ms.Reader said this are two different houses,right. Mr.Grogg said yes. Ms.Reader said on the southern house...interrupted. Mr.Grogg said actually the southern house is close to about 100 ft. The southern house sits in a little bit further,not much. Ms.Reader said on the southern house,you're intending to construct a higher hill. Mr.Grogg said the top of the hill is the same elevation,except the grade as you go along the property line, the two houses sit here and sit here,at the property line. So,the one section is coming through here and the other section is through here. The grade is lower here than it is here. Mr.Jacobson said the grade diminishes as it goes up. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 15 Ms.Aisen said,but in each case,both the southern and the northern,the top of the grade and the tops of the houses are approximately level so that the view from the house is of the slope in each case. Mr.Jacobson asked if there is any thought of mitigating the additional effect of the regrading? Is that part of your plan? Ms.Reader asked,what's there now and are they going to remain there inaudible? A woman said she had some pictures,if it would help you. Ms.Reader said let me also suggest,Mr.Grogg,this may be a project it strikes me that I would like to do a walk-through. I think it might be a good idea for us to arrange that. My preference is that we all not do it at the same time,no more than three people at any one time. Mr.Grogg said,I think,Ms.Reader,that Todd Zorn,the club manager,can leave his number and he'd be willing to if people can call him directly and make arrangements. Mr.Jacobson asked how do you intend to treat the slopes? Mr. Grogg said this is the aerial photograph and pointed out that Weaver Street is at the bottom of Fenimore all the way up here. The green is the area of the driving range that's being affected. He pointed out the two houses at the end of Coventry Court,and pointed out the northern house,the southern house. They both have pools in their back yards. Mr.Cohen asked,where's the main building off Weaver Street,which Mr.Grogg pointed out,right there next to the#9. Mr.Grogg said these houses have quite lovely landscaping,along the edges of the house. There's a 4 ft. chain link fence that surrounds their property. Along the back of these properties there's a mixture of pine trees and birches interspersed with them that create a screen. It's a filtered screen. It's not a solid wall. Ms.Reader said it's on the other people's property. Mr.Grogg said it is on the other people's property. There are several trees in this corner,some of them which we're saving. There's three trees in here. Most of the trees that are being removed are more in this area. There's a clump of trees at the bottom of this hill. As you come out here,there's an existing driving range. It is more or less level until you get right about here and then it goes off very steeply. Ms.Aisen asked,are those trees that are there reach the tops of the roofs of the houses? Are they as high as the houses? Ms.Reader asked on who's property? Mr.Grogg asked,the ones that are on the people's property? Ms.Aisen said,yes. Mr.Grogg said no. Ms.Aisen asked,are there any trees between the houses and the driving range that are as high as the houses? Mr.Grogg said I don't want to say there are some tall trees in this area,if there are five. I can't say exactly.... Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 16 Mr.Aisen said I'm trying to understand obviously how the view from those houses will be changed by the construction of these slopes. Ms.Reader said,I think what Ms.Aisen is saying is because of the trees the slope that you have now and the change in the increase of the slope may not affect them visually provided the trees don't die and remain there. Ms.Aisen said right,and it's very hard to put tall,old trees,to plant them tall. Ms. Reader said that's something we can see when we do a walk-through. Apparently there are photographs. This is his application,those are your photographs. I don't want to mix the two right now. If you were to have shown them in advance and he wants to adopt them,it would be fair. Ms.Aisen asked,are you planning to place trees,replace trees and add trees to ease the burden on these houses. Ms.Reader said that's what Mr.Jacobson was also asking for,as well as others. In other words,if you want to do this project and if there is a feeling that it might be a visual burden to the people in those houses,is there anything that you will do so that it makes it prettier and screens it. Mr.Grogg said I've had discussions with the country club and they would be willing to discuss any At the present time,they really sold us as being a more of a natural slope,letting some natural grasses grow. However,they would be open to putting in additional trees,or replanting some of that slope. I think that's also possibly even working with the neighbors,maybe some kind of trees might close it in more. Ms.Aisen said there's a filtered screen now,so they're getting light through those trees onto their property and their windows and their pools,right? Filtered light. When you put up that slope,even if you do put trees there what it's going to do is put in a solid screen. Ms.Reader said it may or may not. SORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! Mr.Capicotto said it's a 100 ft.distance,so I don't think it would affect light. Ms.Reader said I don't know if it will. Would you say it's 100 ft.away? Mr.Grogg said possibly. The northern house is the closer of the two houses. After some discussion,Ms.Reader said using this room as an example,we figure this room is around 45 in length. It would be a little more than twice. How many did you count? Mr.Grogg said twenty. Ms.Reader said and I added half,so twenty-one,that's forty-two we're saying...inaudible. This is just to give you some sense of orientation of proportion. Ms.Reader said this is just one part of the project. I am a little concerned about building up and I guess I'm also concerned about Ms.Reader said we got letters from two people,the Bhutan Consulate and then the neighbor. A gentleman in the audience said this is the neighbor,by the way. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 17 Ms.Reader said the neighbor and the Bhutan Consulate joins them. They already get golf balls into their back yard and into their pool and near the house,fortunately not on the house. My concern was perhaps by raising the hill,among other concerns that they have,that it would increase the interrupted. Dr.Mason said chairman before you go down that trail,the fairway runs right along side Are they getting the range balls or are they getting the golf balls that shanked from the Fairway? Ms.Reader said I don't know. Dr.Mason said you can tell,because the balls are a different color. Ms.Reader said I don't play golf,and then you talked about colors of balls. All I'm saying is,I think that because this is consideration and you will have to deal with this...interrupted. Ms.Reader said that Dr.Mason has asked a very good question. You may need information to be able to address the...inaudible hearing. Mr.Grogg said I think one thing to address,it is an existing driving range,we're not changing the use and we're not changing what's happening there. From the tee to the fence,it's almost 300 yds. If anybody is a golfer,that's a long way. Your average golfer doesn't hit a golf ball 300 yds. With the leveling it out as is being shown to the top of that berm is about 260 to 270 yds.which is still a pretty good drive from those golfers. Mr.Grogg said I appreciate and I can understand there's been some concerns,but I think what's important is we're not changing anything that's happening there now. Ms.Reader said basically you hit from a tee,you said,which is down by tennis courts. That's a single shot and wherever that ball ends,that ball ends. In some ways,I never got to finish my question. What I wanted to say was,this nrrMls to be addressed one way or another and possibly with a certain amount of consideration with physics because I assume it might not just be hitting the ball up from the tee,but also how it lands. It may very well be,despite the fact that they get balls,those balls may be rolling balls. We don't really have all the information. They may be balls that have rolled off the hill and continued to roll onto their property as opposed to balls in flight that have gone over 300 yds. I may very well be by increasing this hill it may actually mitigate that concern. Maybe if you crested the hill higher fewer balls might go onto their property,because of the way balls are. I just don't know,but I'd like to have information one way or the other,or might it increase the possibility of the balls hitting the top of the slope,the higher slope now,and then just bounce up again and ricochet onto their property. I just don't know,but I think because of the change,you may have to ask some other expert. Maybe you can. Maybe an engineer can answer these questions. Ms.Aisen said if there's no impact on the balls,why are you building the slopes. Mr.Grogg said I think possibly it's,as the chairperson said,if some of you take the opportunity to go out there. At the present time if you stand on the tee...it's a practice tee...per non-golfers and hackers like I am,if four people go out and really want to practice and play a round of golf they'll hit a bucket of balls. How far the golf ball goes is actually a function of how good of a golfer you are,but also what club you hit. One golfer can hit anywhere from 50 yards to 300 yards. A typical golfer will go out and he won't hit all of his drivers,he'll hit several different clubs that he warmed up before he plays golf or just practicing trying to improve his games. Mr.Grogg said at the present time when you stand on the tees,the driving range now is level and then it slopes off fairly steeply,in fact there's exposed rock and I can't say but I've been told that some of that material was actually taken out years ago to build the first tee. That area was higher at one time,but I can't attest to that. That's what I've been told by people. Now if somebody hits the ball out over about probably 175/180 yards,they can't see where the ball lands. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 18 Ms.Reader said that must be very frustrating. Mr.Grogg said actually,but it would make me feel good. If it's somebody practicing and wanting to know how far the ball went,and if it went straight,or whether it was slicing and when it hits the ground whether it rolls left or right,it's important to see where the ball lands. Ms.Reader said so the other way of doing that is to make everything lower rather than higher. Mr.Grogg said I know there's been some discussion,but I think concerns as you start excavating out there you're going to hit rock. In the driving range there's a couple outcrops as you go down through. As the slope goes down,there's exposed rock there. Trying to lower the other end you could be taking out substantial rock. Ms.Reader said you didn't talk at all about the bridge. Mr.Grogg said that's the major change. Ms.Reader said one thing I'd like you to do as you said,you incorporated the CZMC recommendations into the plans. Mr.Grogg said the second part,I think really were most of the CZMC's recommendation was,is for extension of the tee at hole four. That is the one that requires the access off of Fenimore and temporary crossings. It was actually very good and we went out there and with the CZMC. Right now it's hard to see,but right where you see this"3",which is the third tee,right next to it there's a small foot bridge and where we show on the plans is where the temporary bridge will go. In fact,it's one of the narrowest parts of the stream. Both sides of the stream are currently protected by large riprap stone. CZMC felt that that's actually the perfect place to put it because some of their concern was and if the bank collapsing and some other things. They were in agreement that's the proper location. However,they did ask that no part of the bridge be inside the riverbank,which we had said would not be. We've added on either side of the stream corridor additional silt fence and also a minimum of 75 ft.of stabilized stone. There concern, again,is any erosion that would occur. Ms.Reader asked what is the stabilizing material. Mr. Grogg said it's just stone gravel. A gravel drive. We said all along that if the conditions are appropriate,either the time of season or the ground conditions,they don't want to have to put gravel roads and then take them out. If they find it's wet and the trucks are bogging down,they will put in gravel just to not tear up the course. The CZMC felt it was important on either side of the stream to make sure he had a stabilized drive up to the bridge. Ms.Reader said you have silt fence and hay bales and crushed stone,with which Mr.Grogg agreed. Mr.Grogg said we show it on the plans. Ms.Reader asked what page it's shown on. Mr.Grogg said actually I think it's the third page. Mr.Carpaneto said there's a Highway Department memo that just came in a half hour ago or so. They have concerns about the bridge on Fenimore before you make your right-hand turn into the course. Dr.Mason said right here is where the Sheldrake fault..inaudible Mr.Carpaneto said what it says is that's an older bridge and it's starting to show some signs of wear and tear. We're not really sure what it's rated for. Being where it is the trucks loaded at that point would Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 19 actually start to brake right in the area or possibly not even on that bridge which would make more stress on it. We also had a concern about where you're coming in,if it's wide enough for the size trucks that you're going to be using. If you look at the memo,there's some photos that show a large tree south and we were wondering if that needs to come down. Are you going to be pulling in and pulling out the same way,the trucks that come empty back the same way? Mr.Grogg said yes. Ms.Reader said that's creating more stress. Mr.Carpaneto said that'more truck traffic over that bridge. It relates back to the other memo,because we've got Ferrandino to look at the traffic. Is it possible to come,we don't know where the fill is coming from,up Fenimore from I-95 rather than come through Weaver and Cornell or possibly...inaudible. I don't know where it's coming from but you can get off....interrupted. Ms.Aisen said 1-95 to Mamaroneck Avenue. Dr.Mason said I-95 to Fenimore Road. After some discussion,Mr.Grogg said it's the fill,and it's a good chance probably 50/50. Some will come from the south and some from the north. If the fill is coming from the south,they would simply get off at 18N,to make the left and come right up Fenimore. Mr.Carpaneto said that is actually what the Town would probably want. SORRY,BOARD MEMBERS ARE SPEAKING AMONG THEMSELVES AND EVERYBODY IS TALKING AT ONCE. Mr.Carpaneto said it also softens up the activity,you could get right on Fenimore...inaudible. Mr.Grogg said we can take a look at that(EVERYBODY IS TALKING AT ONCE!),will be coming from different directions. We may be able to time them so when they have a course from the south, because it's not that much material also. Mr.Carpaneto said that's the only one area you're going to be working on,right? Mr.Grogg said yes. Ms.Reader said that's one issue on the traffic...interrupted. Mr.Grogg said I think addressing what Mr.Carpaneto just said,I think there is access to 95 from the South to come up Fenimore. We just need to look at the time factor of getting in there..inaudible. Dr.Mason said even coming from the east or the north,you've got Hoyt Avenue right to Fenimore and then up. Ms.Reader said...inaudible that contractors go on Weaver and enter that way with the trucks? Mr.Grogg said there was some discussion. What we said is,maybe I was trying the be generic,which I was,because we don't know where the fill is comin;from,generally trucks would be coming from 95 up Weaver Street. If they're coming from Weaver then you'd loop back around. As you're saying,if they're coming from south on 95 they just get off at 18A make a left on Fenimore and they're right there and they don't have to cross that bridge. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 20 Mr. Carpaneto said that's if they're going northbound. Mr. Carpaneto said Cornell is also actually a Scarsdale road. We would have to notify Scarsdale Mr.Grogg said I'm probably better all round. After some discussion,Ms.Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Capicotto said I spoke to Mr.Boggs about getting a little more detail on the diversion to version trenches that will be directing protocol away from the fill area on the driving range. There is one other issue with the DEC letter,the Notice of Intent,...inaudible and we were discussing it. If that is filed after Planning Board approval there may be changes to the project required by DEC which then would not fall under...would not have been...inaudible. Mr.Grogg said this is an NOI. An NOI is,you only submit the notice to DEC and once the notice says that you fall under the statewide general permit and that if you fall under the statewide general permit that you have a sediment,erosion control plan on file,which is the Town permit that you're getting. You send this in and in about two weeks later they send you a letter back which says this is your number. Ms.Gallent said so there's no separate review. Mr.Grogg said no. The reason with DEC where you have to get a I think what you're referring to is say you had a wetlands permit. If you needed a core engineer wetlands permit,then you need to get a DEC water quality first. As part of that,is your NOI process. Otherwise you fall under the statewide general permit. Mr.Capicotto said being it's an over five acre site,is there a requirement to get a floor measurement plan to be reviewed by the DEC? Mr.Grogg said no. The current regs say that if it's over five acres. Under five acres,you don't even have to notify them. Over five acres you have to file an NOI,which I think is changing. Ms.Reader said if you were doing,let's say you are just floating a bridge that's on either side of the new land,say you're riprapping,would it be a different process that you'd be acquiring. Mr.Grogg said probably not,because that's not a DEC regulated water body,it's 5 ft.stream. There's also a threshold where you have to exceed certain lengths before you even need a permit. Ms.Reader asked if there is anything else,Mr.Capicotto? Mr.Capicotto said no. Any other comments have already been discussed. Ms.Reader asked if Board members at this point,have anything further. She said this is a consideration, not a public hearing. The applicant just presents and we kind of clue in on some of the things that perhaps need to be addressed. I know that there are people here that are interested in the project and I will give you an opportunity to speak tonight. Let me just tell you that what you say tonight is not on the record. I would like you to keep your comments really focused,so that they don't necessarily go...inaudible. It may be worthwhile for you to speak,so that the applicants can hear what you have to say. If there's any kind of adjustments that you may want to make in the context of your statements,he can do it before the next session,which will probably be a public hearing. Ms.Reader said we've made no decision here we're taking no position at this point. I'm just trying to speak so that things can sort of move forward. I don't want anything presented that creates some sort of antagonism here tonight. The better way of approaching this is to try to work together. They have made adjustments that may in fact satisfy some of your concerns. Some of your concerns may in fact have reality behind them in physics or may, from a physical point of view,be no different either after this Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 21 project than it is now in which case whatever they do might be irrelevant to your concerns. Also it may have a fact,which is why I've asked them to address some of the things that have been presented to us. I don't know. We need more information,so please when you make your comments do that. The most important thing for you to know is,it's not technically on the record. You still have to come back for the public hearing,if you want to be heard and have it be of any significance and say what you want to say when we have a public hearing. Ms.Reader asked,is there a spokesperson? A gentleman asked if two of us may approach? Ms.Reader said,how about one at a time. Ms.Reader said state your name and tell us who you are. Mark Schwartz,who is an attorney,who represents Mrs.Barbara Fix who is the owner of 3 Coventry Court. Mr.Schartz said I echo what you said earlier really wholeheartedly about a dialogue. We're really thrown into somewhat of great concern because of what's being proposed and because really we feel,I'm not sure I want to say we've been misled,but I feel we thought we were going to be entering into a dialogue with a golf course and this hasn't really come to be. We had a meeting on January 14,2002,we had one with Mr.Grogg,Mr.Zorn,the golf course manager,and a representative,Mr.Ryan. Mrs.Fix and myself were present,we visited the tee and then they came over to Mrs.Fix's house to see what the view was from our side of the fence and they said to us.... we pointed out that our home and our swimming pool were not represented and I thought that was unfair to their board,to your board and to Mrs.Fix. They said they would address that,they would get up and you said the plans....they ought to come back just with some alternatives. That was January 14,2002. We spoke once on January 15,2002, they apologized for misleading us on a certain item and since then we haven't heard from them. So,here we come,today is the 13th,and there's been no dialogue. We're looking for dialogue to try and see how this issue can be dealt with,because really from the view,we have a photograph that will be presented in a minute,it's like having a landfill right in your face when you've got this magnificent home,magnificent property on Coventry Court. We also now are retaining our own consulting engineers to try and deal with this so we can present this to the Board showing it from our angle as opposed from the golf course's angle. I think that's as much as I'd like to say. I'd just like to invite Mrs.Fix to address the Board for a moment. Thank you. Ms.Reader made a suggestion,saying someone needs to take leadership or ownership in working with us. She said you spoke,you're the civil engineer and I'm hoping that maybe you'll self-appoint yourself to make the effort of communication perhaps after...inaudible review it might be a good idea for your expert. Ms.Reader said I have no authority here,to make these things happen but it might make this project move • better and it might make everyone more comfortable with what's happening on this project and it becomes less adversarial...inaudible. Ms.Reader said that's just a recommendation that I have. The other thing is,we could ask for the property to be shown. Mr.Schwartz said we'd be happy to invite you to come over to Mrs.Fix's house. Ms.Reader said I was just going to say that it's possible when I walk through whatever the golf course might be worked out,and Mr.Carpaneto I know this puts a burden on you,maybe counsel will give you telephone numbers and perhaps at the same time we can take a drive around that way if they make their land available or give us permission to go. Mr.Schwartz said we would welcome that madame chair. Ms.Reader said she doesn't have to be home. We just need to be able to have permission to have access to work from that point of view. Barbara Fix said just to give some background,I moved into the house about 11 years ago with my children. I'm a widow and wanted to make a change to the new house. I thought I'd done all the right Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 22 questions and found out that I was on the golf course with nature and trees and just a new start for my family and(SORRY CAN'T UNDERSTAND MS.FIX CLEARLY)I found that you'd been there,you'd inspect the development that was proposed and that had been....inaudible I was in safe territory. I was quite horrified when...inaudible and I was given the impression I was just...inaudible at golf balls. I did ask to find a million dollar question,is it 3 ft.or 5 ft.and was shocked to find it was 30 ft.at the time. I did count on someone to be 25 ft.,but I have admit it's very close and when we spoke about where the house is to the ball court, they didn't talk about the pool which is right on the border. I do want to maintain neighborly relationships and what I'm really trying to do is when my...inaudible children at the pool to promise to keep music down and voices down so we're respectful of...inaudible who are right on the border. I am a neighborly person. Today I did receive some photographs and thought I should just pass them around,which we will be redoing,because they were taken at a house. Ms.Reader asked that Mrs.Fix show them to Mr.Grogg first. Ms.Fix said there's the house and that's the kind of ski slope. I talk about it as a ski slope,because that's the feeling I get when I'm looking high up and now it's been lowered to 25 ft. I'm kind of looking to.... someone spoke about it,its'not a ski slope. Mr.Cohen said that was digitally created at 25 ft. Ms.Fix said it's digitally created at 25 ft. That's kind of what it would look like from a higher level and would if you take the photograph from the floor. Ms.Reader asked do you have any idea of how tall the trees are? Ms.Fix said approximately 25 ft.to 30 ft. After some discussion,Ms.Aisen asked,is that 100 ft.from the top of the slope to the house or to the property line? Ms.Fix said that wasn't clarified. Ms.Fix said that's not the worst view,because that's been taken from a higher level. If we were to take this,take the photo from the pool it would be more in your face. Mr.Cohen asked,did you take it from the house? Ms.Fix said that's taken from the house. Ms.Reader said in doing this,the person at the computer has...inaudible or the distance and it would actually be a little bit helpful maybe to know what size these trees are to give some sort of sense of prospective in someway to measure. Right now it looks like that's going up to the top of the trees. If it's going to be 25 ft.higher and the trees are 100 ft.,even if they're 50 ft.,I don't think it would end up being visible from the top of the trees. I'm not sure. Mr.Capicotto said another way I've done it on some previous projects is actually delve out of a spot on the driving range it looks like,and set up a pole with a flag on the top showing what that....inaudible elevation will be and then you can walk around and visualize...inaudible. Ms.Reader said that might be a nice tool to use when we walk by and somewhere else it's constructed. It might be helpful for us to have some sort of artifacts,the maximum height at the proper distance,maybe a flag pole or whatever,a long piece of wood and somebody who will carry it. Mr.Jacobson said set a pole in the ground. Ms.Reader said that's a great idea,marking the crest,the top of the slope. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 23 Mr.Reader said Mr.Jacobson is making a recommendation of how it should be done so that that should specifically prevail at all times over the next couple of weeks. Mr.Jacobson said if you would set a pole in the ground which would identify the height of the new grade at the top of the slope. Ms.Reader said at the maximum height of the slope. Ms.Aisen said at the point of which the slope will be higher. Mr.Grogg said I can talk to the Country Club to see if this can be done. A 25 ft.pole is a pretty high pole. Mr.Grogg said I'm saying trying to stabilize it so it's there permanently. Mr.Gregg said a Planning Board up in Somers on an IBM project we were building a salt storage building and they were concerned about visually. We did the balloons. There was some discussion and Mr.Grogg said even if it's not a windy day,they go back and the board can get an idea. That's another way that can be done. Mr.Grogg said what's important is maybe the board members can speak among themselves and coordinate with Mr.Zorn. Then he can contact me and we can be sure that's available. Mr.Carpaneto asked Ms.Fix if it is alright if we get an O.K.now to just come at some time onto your property. Ms.Fix said I would like you to see. Mr.Carpaneto asked,do you care if I call you or not before we come? Ms.Fix said with pleasure,you can call or not call or whatever. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to show you. Ms.Reader said my question is the accessibility. You just drive up and can walk around the property? Ms.Fix said at the end of Cornell,it's the white house. Ms.Reader said you have no dogs? Ms.Fix said no. Children,many children. Mr.Grogg said I did have the opportunity. You can walk around the side of the house and go down to the full deck from there. There's a fence and a bank. You can't get there from the golf course. Ms.Reader asked how old are your children. Ms.Fix said my youngest is nine. Ms.Aisen said when we come,just warn the children. Let them know. Ms.Fix asked what is the time frame. Mr.Carpaneto said I'll call you. Ms.Reader said I could do it this Saturday. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 24 Mr.Cohen said it could be on any Friday,after 12 noon. Ms.Reader said I can do it next Friday. Anything else? Mr.Grogg said there is one other thing I just wanted to bring up and discuss somewhat. The last time we were here there was even some discussion on this whole project and what was even required to be site plan approval or is not. We understand the issues. The Country Club,one of the pieces is that maintenance area which is in the middle of the site which is part of their ongoing maintenance operation. They'd like to start the whole project,but that's one area that they can start doing some of the work without taking down any trees. There is some opinion that that could be done under the soil,erosion bonding permit without site plan approval. I'll leave it up to your counsel. Ms.Gallent asked what's involved? Mr.Grogg said it would involve bringing in material and regrading that area. After some discussion,Mr.Cohen asked,is this one project? Ms.Reader said the problem was when they present the project that falls within,all that comes under Freshwater Wetlands Law. Mr.Grogg said#4 doesn't. Number 14 is the one that's closest to it. Mr.Grogg said you were after the site law. They have under the other permits with the Town right now to rebuild a pump house which is right next to that area. That's being finished and they want to just get that area dressed up. If any of that work can be done concurrently,they would appreciate that ability to do that. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Grogg to run through the maintenance. You're taking down the building,doing the blacktop,regrading between the blacktop. Mr.Grogg said it's not going to be blacktop. It's going to be gravel. Ms.Reader said it's gravel,the driveway for the trucks. Mr.Grogg said yes,this is where the trucks stockpile their topsoil and there other materials. Ms.Reader said just remind us,what's that project? Mr.Grogg said that's just really leveling that area,bring in a little of the material to flatten it because now it's sort of terraces not useable area,clean up a lot of the stuff that's been there. Ms.Reader said I know what you want to do,you want to get it so that you make it more useable. Mr.Grogg said we want to be able to start maintaining it,be able to put our stand there. Ms.Reader said I'm less interested in what you want to accomplish with it then what you're your actually going to do in the project. Just take me through the steps of the project. Ms.Reader said do you want to know what the project is,or do you remember the project? Mr.Grogg said we do show on the site plan that there are several trees that would have to be removed. The initial work could be done without,because logically the question you would ask is that we're not getting tree removal for the site plan,you have to get tree removal through the tree removal commission, so the work could be done in that area. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 25 Ms.Reader said I would like to know what could and what can't be done. Let's assume that you were just doing this one project and nothing else. What would be the steps? Mr. Grogg said if we were going in to do that project, nothing else is on the board, the project as presented to you would be to really come in there,just level that area,there would be regrading the area. Ms.Reader said by bringing in topsoil. Mr.Grogg said actually dirt. There's an asphalt road that goes up there now. We're going to have to redo part of that road and I think we show on the plan that there are about four trees that would come down around the edge. Ms.Reader said so that means tree permit? Mr.Grogg said if we went before the Planning Board. Ms.Reader said that would be a Building Department issue. Mr.Grogg said it's that brown area. Ms.Reader asked,is that anywhere near the Freshwater Wetlands? Mr.Capicotto said no. Ms.Reader said it's not near the borders of the property at all,so it doesn't impact on neighbors or whatever. Is there any way that we can sever this out and it becomes a Building Department issue? IT'S DIFFICULT TO HEAR WHAT BEING SAYING! Ms.Reader said the first one I have no problem with saying that this is O.K.,we're building a house, sever this plan out,draw up a new plan to...inaudible exclude it. What do you think? Mr.Capicotto said then we could just look at it under erosion control. Ms.Reader said then it becomes a Building Department problem. I'm not sure for someone to reject it. Mr.Capicotto said will someone speak to that? Mr.Grogg said I think about 3,000 to 5,000 yards. Ms.Reader asked how many trucks is that? How much does a truck hold? Mr.Grogg about 20 yards. Ms.Reader asked how many did you say? Mr.Grogg said probably 20 to 30 yards. For that they bring in larger trucks. Probably 30 to 35. Ms.Reader said because of the number of trucks,would that make it a Town site plan issue? Mr.Carpaneto said I would like to think about it. Ms.Reader said that's fair. She said let there be conversation. We'll hold it off for another month anyway,but that's fine. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 26 Ms.Gallent will check the state law. Ms.Reader asked could he make a decision in the interim or does he have to come back to us anyway. Ms.Gallent said no,because it either is or isn't within the law. Ms.Reader said it's your decision. She said he's not to be pressured by anyone. Mr.Grogg said I understand. I appreciate the concern. I'm sure you look at it,but I was looking at the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and the purpose of that really specifically talks about movement of earth and disturbing the land. Ms.Reader said that and traffic. Ms.Gallent said she will check the State Law and see if the State Law sheds any light. Mr.Grogg said we appreciate it and then we can get back to one of you and you'll let us know. If the decision is favorable,we can separate that out. Mr.Grogg said thank you very much for the consideration. Ms. Reader said do they need to go back to CZMC with the new plans since what they've done is incorporated it with the CZMC. Mr.Grogg said no. Ms.Reader said it's on for a public hearing March 13,2002,8:15 p.m. Mr.Schwartz asked what happens if we need further time? Ms.Reader said the public hearing...if we need further time or if you come and you say we hired an expert and he needs additional time,the public hearing will start and then it may be continued for the following month. Mr.Schwartz said I understand,thank you. Ms.Reader said I can't tell you it will be,but it may factor it in. A woman said let me introduce myself. My name is Katherine Dehaus. I'm with the Coastal Zone Management Commission and I'm going to be the Liaison to this committee. I just wanted to add a little clarification. There was a letter that was sent to you. These are really my personal comments,because I happen to be a member of that board. Ms.Reader asked if Ms.Dehaus is speaking as CZMC Liaison or are you speaking as a citizen? Ms.Dehaus said I'm speaking as a citizen,but I'm just identifying myself to you. Ms.Dehaus said regarding the bridge over the Sheldrake River,the comments here regarding silt fencing, hay bales and gravel,just to clarify that my impression of that is that it specifies at 75 ft.,but that's really an estimate of what might be required. In fact,given the slope of the land and the wish to avoid any erosion from mud that's churned up by the trucks, eroding down the storm event and getting into the Sheldrake,my feeling is that probably a greater amount of gravel would be required,would be wise. This might be sufficient,but...interrupted. Ms.Reader said it says no less than 75 ft. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 27 Ms.Dehaus said as far as the gravel,it just states for a distance of 75 ft. Just to state that. We want to make certain that I do,and I think all the people on the board,but I wasn't certain that was entirely made clear in this letter. Ms.Reader said the letter is right. I don't know what to do and how much gravel and what distance you're intending to do. Mr.Grogg said we showed 75 ft. I think what I would suggest is we can add a note on the plan or the Board is....really that falls also under the erosion control. During the construction, the Building Department and the Town Engineer will be inspecting it and you can make a condition or we can add a note on the plan that says that they feel the addition was required,it would be installed. Ms.Reader said Mr.Carpaneto I'm just going to throw this thing against you. This is something that you complete..inaudible and you make judgements and modification or directives...inaudible. Mr.Carpaneto replied,but I can't hear what he said. Mr.Grogg said we all do our best with sediment control,but some of us know that some it you have to constantly have to watch it and adjust it...inaudible. Mr.Reader thanked Mr.Grogg and asked if anyone else has anything else to say at this time. She asked if there's anything further,any comments,questions,directions or issues of concern for the professional staff or members of the board? There were none. Ms.Reader said again I adjourn this for a public hearing March 13,2002. It's your obligation to make the notice of the hearing. After some discussion,Ms.Roma said the Town does the notification for Freshwater Wetlands Permits and Site Plan. Mr.Grogg said thank you for your consideration. Ms.Reader read the next matter on the agenda as follows: PROPOSED NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE Mr.Carpaneto said this is a change in their procedure on the notification process. Right now we just do the mailing and we do all the work and we go back and forth. What the Town is thinking of doing is putting some of that burden on the applicant,making them do the mailing,we would supply the list,they would have to produce the labels,envelopes and the materials and stuff the envelopes and then also a sign on the property. We actually experimented on it when we did the cell tower on Richbell Road. We had the applicant put up three signs,we gave them some specs from the code from some other town and it seemed to work. There were no objections about it and it seemed to work fairly well. Especially in a situation like that where that building would just get one notice,because we don't notice all the tenants. Ms.Aisen said it was a tower going,so what was the sign on? Mr.Carpaneto said the sign was on the tree in front of the building where the tower was going to go. Ms.Aisen said not on somebody's house? Mr.Carpaneto said no. • There was some discussion regarding this issue among Board members. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 28 Ms.Reader was concerned about shifting the burden to the applicants,who may omit a name. Mr.Carpaneto said we would supply the list of names. Ms.Reader said our system has worked well. Ms.Aisen asked if we're doing this for financial reasons? Mr.Carpaneto said no,not for financial reasons. We felt the sign would identify the property.We thought that would be informative actually. Mr.Capicotto said if you have someone renting a house,wouldn't the letter go to the owner? Mr.Carpaneto said that's correct. Mr.Capicotto said and then the renter could have something built across the street,and never know. You pass by every day and you enjoy this particular view. Then one day it's just gone,because something's been built there and you never had a chance to find out. Mr.Carpaneto said it will actually broaden the notice. A discussion ensued regarding the radius noticed for various projects,the number of mailings done and the use of signage. Ms.Seligson said the actual impetus for evaluating this whole process,was several complaints that we received regarding the zoning board for people who were either out of town when the notice was delivered and there wasn't enough time,they received it with very little time,they were not clear to what the notice was really saying to them. Mr.Carpaneto said right now there's five days required. They want to bump that up to fourteen days. Ms.Seligson said so this was to say if you're away for a few days and you come home and don't open your mail within twenty minutes,you might miss the hearing,you might miss the meeting. There were some folks who attended meetings who didn't seem to be clear in their exact role in the audience and how they were allowed to communicate with the board or have their own representation,etc. This was an opportunity to try and clear that up and make it very explicit and specific as to what their rights are. Ms.Aisen said but you're also not only clarifying,but you're proposing a change. Ms.Seligson said the change is in having the sign and change the amount of days for notice. Mr.Carpaneto said right now we have fifteen days for a wetlands,and everything else would just be five days. Mr.Jacobson said we're changing the time of notice,we're changing the parties responsible and the radius. Mr.Carpaneto said right,and possibly the radius. Ms.Reader said and notice to the person who arranges the mailing. The notice to the persons in the mailing will include the right to speak at a public hearing, to submit photographs,and other tangible evidence. Ms.Seligson said I was just referring to the person who's receiving the notice. We definitely are changing four of the items here. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 29 Mr.Carpaneto said that's what Ms.Reader just said,that we clarify what people can or can't do. Ms.Reader said so that there will be a more elaborate notification. Ms.Seligson said right,because we've had people who have come in and said I didn't know that I was allowed to talk or that I should have spoken up or that I should have had my own lawyer with me or I could have had my own engineer. Ms.Reader said we can do that in the account notices. We could put an external(?)notice on the very top gives everyone notified,these are your privileges or your rights. Ms.Seligson said it also came to our attention that there didn't seem to be enough time. It's true,if you're away for a few days and you get home and there's a pack of mail this high,you could...interrupted. Ms.Reader said and I know that fourteen days is an issue or ten days or however you want to lengthen it rather than five,but all it will do is slow down the process. What it will do is,instead of being on the next month's meeting,you may have to leapfrog for the second month. I can see that happening a fair amount. I don't have a problem with more explanation of what people can do in the process,I don't have a problem with the number of days. Mr.Carpaneto said we're not sure if we're going to expand it or actually reduce it. The idea is the sign may help reduce the radius. Ms.Reader said do you think you're making it bigger? Ms.Seligson said no,something would be reduced because the sign would allow other people to see it. Ms.Reader said so it's either the same or reduced. Mr.Jacobson said with the sign,does the applicant then have to go and have the sign made up or are you going to provide the sign? Mr.Carpaneto said yes,the applicant will make up the sign for us. Ms.Seligson said but I thought we were going to...interrupted. Mr.Carpaneto said we were going to tell them what...interrupted. Ms.Seligson said we were going to tell them all the specs of it. Mr.Carpaneto said correct. Mr.Jacobson said let's have a generic sign and you just fill it in. Ms.Seligson said that's what I thought we were going to do. They could either rent a sign or you would have them fill in the blank sign. After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked can we purchase signs that are erasable maybe? Ms.Seligson said possible. Dr.Mason said you can use a magic marker and you can fill in the block and lot number and the date of the hearing. • Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 30 Ms.Reader said can the Town buy maybe fifty/twenty signs and then people can rent them. You have to leave a deposit or we will never get them back. Mr.Carpaneto said we've thought about a couple of ways to handle this. Ms.Reader said I don't have any objection. Mr.Carpaneto said in Somers it's gotten to be part of the code now. Mr.Capicotto said if the sign has the date of the meeting,you're kind of announcing to everyone that we won't be home. Ms.Seligson said not necessarily though. If there are four people who live in a house,there's not going to be four people coming to the meeting. You don't get whole families at the meeting. Mr.Carpaneto said it's nice to see that when you're driving on route 100 you see a sign on a tree and it says that this is a proposed 150-lot subdivision that you might no normally pick up in that little fine print in the paper. Ms.Seligson said without a doubt we always hear the complaint that I didn't know there was a meeting, I didn't know this was on and that is yes,we fulfilled our legal obligation of putting it in the paper and it was this minuscule little writing in the back page of the paper no one buys. Mr.Capicotto said there are always people who don't get the word. Ms.Reader said the consensus is the sign is O.K. I think you-probably have the consensus...interrupted. Mr.Carpaneto said Marguerite we have to write a memo to Steve Altieri. He wants the memo back. Ms.Reader said I may be the only one that feels the Town should continue to do the notice,but keeping what we say in the notice. I think everyone else here thinks it's O.K.for the applicant. Dr.Mason said I'm with you,the Town should do the notice. Ms.Reader said then let's get a sense of what people feel about the notice. Mr.Cohen said I'm O.K.with the applicant noticing,because I do this in other towns because I am the applicant in other towns and I wind up doing it. Ms.Reader said but you're a business though. You're doing it as a business. I'm talking,these are going to be largely private citizens doing residential projects and I just don't think...I think it's a burden on them,but more so than that,I'm really one for a procedure that's necessary to be done and it's going to be met. Mr.Jacobson said they won't do it. Won't their architects do it for them. Ms.Reader said no. Ms.Seligson said the Town Board's thi,ki,g or discussion was taking it that they are coming to the Town and asking for something. They're not asking for nothing. Dr.Mason said but they're also paying a handsome fee. Ms. Seligson yes, they get a lot of things for those handsome fees, but a variance is something that everyone asks for. Taxes are something that everyone does pay. Anyway,the thought was this would free Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 31 up a lot of aggravation for the people in the Town that are...inaudible us half way and also would save money. I thought that that was an issue we had. Ms. Reader said I care very much about the office and the work. I don't favor putting this on the residential applicant. Dr.Mason said nor do I. Mr.Cohen said so we have two nos. I'm O.K.with it. Mr.Jacobson said I am anti-sign and I'm happy to keep the process of those letters within the Building Department. Ms.Aisen said there are three people against it. Ms.Reader asked who else is against the sign,Dr.Mason...interrupted. Dr.Mason said I don't like the sign. I just had to do one...interrupted. Mr.Jacobson said I'm all alone. Ms.Reader said we don't like this sign. SORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Mr.Jacobson,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the meeting is adjourned to March 13,2002. OTHER BUSINESS Ms.Reader said I'm am really remiss. One,Linda Harrington,as you may know,has retired from our Board and is now about to start on the Zoning Board. Linda has been a member since February of'94. She's been a wonderful member and a significant contributor of great ideas to the Planning Board for the past eight years. We're sorry to lose her. Ms.Reader said on the other hand,coming onto our Board is Ed Jacobson whom I have known for a long time even spending it with his children,because they sat for my kids. Ed is an architect,he's been the chair of the Board of Architectural Review and been in the Town for many years,before I even started here. I know he will be a tremendous additional asset to this Board. So,welcome Ed. Mr.Jacobson said thank you very much. Ms eader said and I thank everyone else. Ms.Reader said Happy Valentine's Day. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 13,2002. Planning Board February 13,2002 Page 32 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:30 p.m. C1i1o��i ecra Marguerite R Recording Secretary